How large a technical skill set is required to fence foil?

[the ancient one]

No skill required, all you need is to bring a Gillooly to the venue.

[Superscribe]

i enjoy watching watching monkey's trying to hump a football as much as the next guy (read: not very much), but there's a certain je ne sais quois that makes me want to break things up whenever i'm worried the monkeys are actually going to hurt themselves. also, i actually like foil a lot, so i have interest in this line of reasoning.


instead of participating in a discussion by being so uptight it's actually worthless to participate in the discussion like Mr. Epee, i'm going to take a stab at your question, big, and you let me know if i'm the right track, okay?

I think you are defining "lots of technical skill" as knowing a lot of obviously different moves. Someone technically skilled knows lots of very different parries. I think you would called a point guard on a basketball team more technically skilled than the center.

The problem is once you dive deep into a sport, you realize that not only is there a lot horizontally, there is a lot vertically. Not only is there a lot of obviously different moves, there are a lot of moves that are subtly different. But they are different. Just because they are not obvious doesn't mean they aren't IMPORTANT.

Dan H's answer is superficial, and doesn't get at the heart of the matter.

[eac]

Superscribe, that was admirable, but you're still bullsh*tting just like Mr. E says we all are. (What's a 'move'? Are you sure that anybody at all would agree with 'Someone technically skilled knows lots of very different parries'? I'm not sure I know anybody who would.)

But, so is everybody else who's trying to say anything, because, as he said in the don't-post-in-this-forum-or-especially-this-thread thread, it's basically impossible to actually communicate usefully about this in text.

There are at least two reasons for this. One is that to communicate the kind of understanding necessary would take a (very) large volume of communication, which is presumably not expected in a post, lest no one read it. The other is that all the (at least somewhat) successful communications of this kind of understanding in the past have come almost entirely in person, with a lot of physical handwaving and demonstrating and common reference points. (And communication often breaks down even in person without sufficient common reference points.)

So it's not really going to happen for you (big daddy), in all likelihood, especially on a topic as nebulous as this.

I continue to believe, however, in the transformational power of video, particularly for the reference point problem. (cf. bushism)

[big daddy]

Folks good replies in a mind bending sort of way,Sometimes a question i s an attempt to look at an idea from another angle.This was one.

[Superscribe]

Superscribe, that was admirable, but you're still bullsh*tting just like Mr. E says we all are. (What's a 'move'? Are you sure that anybody at all would agree with 'Someone technically skilled knows lots of very different parries'? I'm not sure I know anybody who would.)

But, so is everybody else who's trying to say anything, because, as he said in the don't-post-in-this-forum-or-especially-this-thread thread, it's basically impossible to actually communicate usefully about this in text.

There are at least two reasons for this. One is that to communicate the kind of understanding necessary would take a (very) large volume of communication, which is presumably not expected in a post, lest no one read it. The other is that all the (at least somewhat) successful communications of this kind of understanding in the past have come almost entirely in person, with a lot of physical handwaving and demonstrating and common reference points. (And communication often breaks down even in person without sufficient common reference points.)

So it's not really going to happen for you (big daddy), in all likelihood, especially on a topic as nebulous as this.

I continue to believe, however, in the transformational power of video, particularly for the reference point problem. (cf. bushism)

I think its just a matter of posting to accomplish literally nothing, and posting to make some sort of progress, even if it's not in exact direct precise alignment with the original intent of the OP.

Further, Mr. Epee has got to be from some low context country. The phobia of contextual understanding and communicating via communally similar experiences is just not something I'm going to validate.

[keith]

Further, Mr. Epee has got to be from some low context country. The phobia of contextual understanding and communicating via communally similar experiences is just not something I'm going to validate.

Americans and their fancy philosophising. Give me the French any day.

[keith]

Folks good replies in a mind bending sort of way,Sometimes a question i s an attempt to look at an idea from another angle.This was one.

To distill, tell your students that if you use the following construction (or anything similar);

"Why didn't you do X, you can do X in a lesson/club bout."

"You wouldn't have lost if you had done Y."


They are are to firmly, but politely, knee you in the groin.

[Superscribe]

Folks good replies in a mind bending sort of way,Sometimes a question i s an attempt to look at an idea from another angle.This was one.

For the record, most of the replies here were simply to bring you up to speed, not bend our minds in any sort of way. there's nothing wrong with asking questions and learning, but i don't want you to be tricked into thinking that you have have somehow forwarded the significant thought that's already occured concerning the art of teaching the art of fencing.

[eac]

I support the phobia of context when online, because context is rarely actually shared online, and so assuming it usually leads to endless debates resulting from differing definitions and/or reference points.

[Superscribe]

there is a lot of context share through teh intarwebz!!!!111

it's just not about fencing, because people are either too stupid, too impatient, too cynical, to really establish it.

but some of us are still going to try.

do i think you can learn how to be a world beating fencer through a forum? no

do i think we can do a better job of un-misguiding them? yes

[KidLazy]

Years ago my first fencing coach told me that the set of technical skills required to fence foil is quite small.I didn't think about that statement until I became involved some othe fighting sports: Judo, boxing and karate.Inoticed that very few skills are used in competition.This got me to thinking about how many actions are really used in foil.How many are skills should one learn? How many does one need to learn?What are you thoughts on this concept?

Define... fencing.
(What's your definition of fencing?)